Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
People are naturally attracted to beautiful things.
I reject the idea that all sin is equal for this is the error of over-generalization. Sure, all sin is sin but there is ample evidence in Scripture of ranking severity. Consider Ex 22. And in the NT, we are told we will be paid for our work, implying another graduated (non-equal) schedule.
The moral laws are written on the heart when we accept Christ. That is the essence of the new testament.
TY. There is no doubt men sexually engaging with other men and women sexually engaging with other women IS NOT an acceptable taught behavior or condoned behavior ACCORDING to Gods Word.
Love is not a lifestyle
Mostly because their good neighbors would butcher them and their families if they were outed.
The choice to be honest and to refuse to live in fear and the choice to stand up to those who choose to hate them.
You seem to be talking about racial equality
No I have never thought anything that ridiculous in my life.
IOW, you're saying the Bible doesn't mean what it clearly says.Regarding the interpretation of Rom. 1:26-27: verse 26 does not say women had sex with other women. If they were having anal and oral sex with men, that was a change of behavior from the created design. To say this is lesbianism is to read into the verse what it does not state.
On v27, the Greek for "burned" is G1572 ἐκκαίω ekkaio and this is the only occurrence of the word in the entire NT. It is an extreme burning out, not typical sex drive as in 1 Cor 7:9 where another Greek word is used. Also, the Greek for the word "lust" here is G3715 ὄρεξις orexis and again, this is the only place it is found in the entire NT. The males spoken of here are "leaving the natural use of the woman", and means that they were heterosexuals who were perverts. I know two records of history from the time of Paul, and he was not writing in a vacuum, he saw what was around him -
About Nero, and it is very revealing (I'll not print this one out or the post will be too large.)
Here is another, and I'll print it out so you don't miss it. This is a Greek philosopher describing just exactly what Paul described and he lived in Paul's day -
From the Greek philosopher Dio Chrysostom (40-110 AD) in The Seventh or Euboean Discourse
"In dealing with brothel-keepers and their trade we must certainly betray no weakness as though something were to be said on both sides, but must sternly forbid them...Such men bring individuals together in union without love and intercourse without affection, and all for the sake of filthy lucre...For evils are never wont to remain as they are; they are ever active and advancing to greater wantonness if they meet no compelling check...Indeed, beginning with practices and habits that seem trivial and allowable, it acquires a strength and force that are uncontrollable, and no longer stops at anything...Now at this point we must assuredly remember that this adultery committed with outcasts, so evident in our midst and becoming so brazen and unchecked, is to a very great extent paving the way to hidden and secret assaults upon the chastity of women and boys of good family...The man whose appetite is insatiate in such things, when he finds there is no scarcity, no resistance, in this field, will have contempt for the easy conquest and scorn for a woman's love, as a thing too readily given — in fact, too utterly feminine — and will turn his assault against the male quarters, eager to befoul the youth who will very soon be magistrates and judges and generals, believing that in them he will find a kind of pleasure difficult and hard to procure. His state is like that of men who are addicted to drinking and wine-bibbing, who after long and steady drinking of unmixed wine, often lose their taste for it and create an artificial thirst by the stimulus of sweatings, salted foods, and condiments."
It is a long passage so you need to use "Find on Page" for what I have quoted.
Of course, there is John Chrysostom who in his homily on this knew it did not fit the picture of a loving sexual relationship between two male friends.
"But behold how here too, as in the case of the doctrines, he deprives them of excuse, by saying of the women, that "they changed the natural use." For no one, he means, can say that it was by being hindered of legitimate intercourse that they came to this pass, or that it was from having no means to fulfil their desire that they were driven into this monstrous insaneness. For the changing implies possession. Which also when discoursing upon the doctrines he said, "They changed the truth of God for a lie." And with regard to the men again, he shows the same thing by saying, "Leaving the natural use of the woman."
Then there is the JFB Commentary of 1872, long before the word homosexual was coined, on this passage -
"Observe how, in the retributive judgment of God, vice is here seen consuming and exhausting itself. When the passions, scourged by violent and continued indulgence in natural vices, became impotent to yield the craved enjoyment, resort was had to artificial stimulants by the practice of unnatural and monstrous vices."
Romans 1 - Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible - Unabridged - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org
Romans 1, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible - Unabridged, Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown's Unabridged Commentary is a comprehensive resource, offering critical and explanatory insights into the entire Bible.www.studylight.org
Of course, the passage in Romans 1 must be read and compared with Paul's other two passages 1 Cor.6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10 where he coined the word arsenokoites and when you study that word you get a good picture of what Paul is condemning, and it is NOT two male friends having sexual intimacy.
Reading from statements out of the church that go into some detail on various verses, you do not find the hatred that you find directed at a male simply because his nature is to love only another male and they form a relationship.
I'll let the reader check to see how the translators of the KJV, RV, ASV & YLT viewed 1 Cor. 6:9 & 1 Tim. 1:10 by reading the 1828 Webster's definitions of "abuser", "ravisher" and "defile". You find that men of God out of the past viewed those passages as describing those who: debauch; violate; ravish; violence; force... and the word "sodomite" is shown to be the meaning. When you take all of Paul's comments on this, it is not a condemnation of two males in an intimate relationship. That is homophobia coming from the mind of ....
David and Jonathan NEVER had a single homosexual encounter = you are reading into things that never existed.Since no gay-haters have tried to give an answer to this verse about Jonathan's love, I'll add an additional verse and when added to 2 Sam. 1:26; it is an unavoidable conclusion that the sexual element was present.
"And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit(qashar)with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul." (1Sam 18:1 KJV)
Commentaries and some cross references state that cannot be homoerotic, because the Hebrew (qashar) is used of a father's being bound to his son, and they give the following -
"Now therefore when I come to thy servant my father, and the lad be not with us; seeing that his life is bound(qashar) up in the lad's life;" (Gen 44:30 KJV)
There is a problem with that response to Jonathan's love it is because in the Hebrew Interlinear glosses of the use of (qashar), some give the gender indicator. I'll give both those verses again with the gender shown. I'll use an online Hebrew-English Interlinear OT so it can be checked -
"And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan she was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul." (1Sam 18:1 KJV)
*I put "she" in bold so it won't be missed
Now compare with the one of a father's being bound to his son in the Interlinear OT.
Now therefore when I come to thy servant my father, and the lad be not with us; seeing that his life is bound up in the lad's life; (Gen 44:30 KJV
*There is no addition of the gender "she" there.
In the OT use of (qashar) besides this one about Jonathan in 1 Sam. 18:1, there are two other where it is modified with "she". So, this combination of (qashar) with "she" is only found 3 times.
"And it came to pass, when she travailed, that the one put out his hand: and the midwife took and she bound upon his hand a scarlet thread, saying, This came out first." (Gen 38:28 KJV)
Rahab - "And she said, According unto your words, so be it. And she sent them away, and they departed: and she bound the scarlet line in the window." (Josh 2:21 KJV) *Here the KJV follows the gender indicator where the Interlinear reads "and she is tying".
The Hebrew (qashar) is used over 40 times in the OT, and numerous times it has "he" as the gender indicator, and it is always with a male. Some examples are: The gender "he" in 1Kgs15:27 (male); 16:9,16,20 (him); 2Kgs9:14;10:9;15:10,15,25,30(him); Job41:4(him); Amos7:19(he)
I have a respected Zondervan Hebrew-English Linear OT on my bookshelf, and it agrees with this online reference about the gender.
When I study this reference of Jonathan's love here, and I connect it with David's statement in 2 Sam. 1:26, I find it impossible to deny a homoerotic element to their love.
"I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women." (2Sam 1:26 KJV)
If anyone has the need to counsel with a gay boy/man, do stay with the KJV and use the appropriate dictionary for the words, the 1828 Webster's English Dictionary. The RV, ASV, YLT follow the KJV translation; but once we come to the modern LGBTQ era, the culture seems to dictate translations of both the liberal and conservative.
